DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Action is in response to the Application filed 10/20/2025.
The status of the Claims is as follows:
Claims 1-24 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations in this application that are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Drive mechanism (17): linear actuators, hydraulic pistons, rack and pinion, or electric motors. (pg. 15-16)
Transfer means: robot arm, grabber device, tilting mechanism, pushing device, human worker, different kinds of transfer means (first, second and third embodiment of transfer means sections, and other variants section; pgs. 13-26)
Container conveying means: conveyor, robot arm, vehicle or any suitable means (pg. 13)
Stock conveying means: conveyor, robot arm, vehicle or any other suitable means (pg. 13)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10, 13, 18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hallgren (US5993146).
Regarding Claim 1 Hallgren discloses a stock retrieval system comprising:
i) a storage container (40) for containing stock (B);
ii) a base plate (P) configured to support stock (B) and to be housed within the storage container (40), the base plate (P) being vertically movable relative to a bottom of the storage container; (Col 4 lines 21-23) and
iii) a drive mechanism (Col 5 lines 2-11) configured to move the base plate relative to the bottom of the storage container from a lowered position (Fig. 6), in which the base plate (P) is at a level below a top of at least one side wall of the storage container (40), to a raised position (Fig. 1), in which the base plate (P) is substantially at or above the same vertical level as the top of the at least one side wall of the storage container, (Col 4 line 63- Col 5 line 11) wherein the drive mechanism comprises at least one supporting rod (Col 4 lines 26-35) comprising an upper end configured to engage with the underside of the base plate (P).
Regarding Claim 3 Hallgren discloses the invention as described above and further discloses the base plate (P) comprises at least one side wall (annotated Fig. 1) substantially lower in height than the at least one side wall of the storage container (40).
PNG
media_image1.png
376
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4 Hallgren discloses the invention as described above and further discloses a control system configured to control the drive mechanism (Col 5 lines 2-11) to move the base plate (P) between the raised position and the lowered position. (Col 4 line 63 – Col 5 line 11)
Regarding Claim 5 Hallgren discloses the invention as described above and further discloses the control system is further configured to control the drive mechanism (Col 5 lines 2-11) to move the base plate (P) from the lowered position to at least one intermediate position at a vertical level between the lowered position (Fig. 6) and the raised position (Fig. 1). (Col 5 lines 43-53)
Regarding Claim 6 Hallgren discloses the invention as described above and further discloses the drive mechanism (Col 5 lines 2-11) is configured to move the at least one supporting rod (Col 4 lines 26-35) vertically upwards to lift the base plate (P) within the storage container (40) from the lowered position to the raised position. (Col 4 line 63 – Col 5 line 11)
Regarding Claim 8 Hallgren discloses the invention as described above and further discloses transfer means (F) configured to remove at least one item of stock (B) from the base plate (P), when the base plate (P) is in the raised position.
Regarding Claim 10 Hallgren discloses the invention as described above and further discloses the transfer means comprises a tilting mechanism configured to tilt the base plate at the raised position to an inclined position to allow the at least one item of stock to be removed by sliding off the base plate. (Col 4 lines 26-35)
Regarding Claim 13 Hallgren discloses the invention as described above and further discloses the upper end of one or more of the at least one supporting rod and/or the underside of the base plate (P) comprises an engagement feature (64) configured to engage the upper end with the underside of the base plate (P). (Fig. 3)
Regarding Claim 18 Hallgren discloses the invention as described above and further discloses the upper end of one or more of the at least one supporting rod (Col 4 lines 26-35) comprises a wheel (64) to facilitate movement of the base plate (P) in order to insert/remove the base plate (P) into/from the container (40) when the base plate (P) is in the raised position.
Regarding Claim 20 Hallgren discloses a method of retrieving stock using the stock retrieval system of claim 1, wherein the storage container (40) comprises one or more items of stock (B) on the base plate (P), the method comprising the steps of: i) moving the base plate (P) from the lowered position (Fig. 6) to the raised position (Fig. 1) or an intermediate position between the lowered position and the raised position using the drive mechanism such that at least one item of stock (B) on the base plate is at a level vertically above the top of the at least one side wall of the storage container (40) (Fig. 1); and ii) removing the at least one item of stock (B) from the base plate (P). (Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 21 Hallgren discloses the invention as described above and further discloses the stock retrieval system further comprises a stock conveying means (95), the method further comprising the steps of: iii) transferring the at least one item of stock (B) onto the stock conveying means (95); and iv) transporting the at least one stock (B) item away from the stock retrieval system using the stock conveying means (95). (Col 5 lines 37-56)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallgren (US5993146) in view of Bastian (US 20190322451 et al. Bastian).
Regarding Claim 9 Hallgren discloses the invention as described above and further discloses the transfer means comprises a fork lift with an end effector comprising one or more horizontal lifting plates in a support position where the plates support the at least one item of stock from below and a disengaged position in which the one or more horizontal lifting plates are disengaged with the at least one item of stock. (Fig. 1)
However, Hallgreen does not expressly disclose a robot arm an end effector comprising one or more horizontal lifting plates moveable between a closed position in which the one or more horizontal lifting plates support the at least one item of stock from below and an open position in which the one or more horizontal lifting plates are disengaged with the at least one item of stock.
Bastian teaches a stock retrieval system that includes a transfer means that can include a forklift or a robot arm (par 10) Bastian further teaches a robot arm that includes an end effector comprising one or more horizontal lifting plates moveable between a closed position in which the one or more horizontal lifting plates support the at least one item of stock and an open position in which the one or more horizontal lifting plates are disengaged with the at least one item of stock providing precise gripping control during transfer of the stock for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (par 96-97)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the transfer means as taught by Hallgreen to include a robot arm as taught by Bastian since par 96-97 of Bastian suggests that such a modification provides precise gripping control during transfer of the stock for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7, 11, 12, 14-17, 19 and 22-24 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 2 The Prior Art does not teach the storage container comprises a bottom wall comprising at least one opening, and the at least one supporting rod is configured to protrude through the at least one opening in addition to the limitations included in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7 The Prior Art does not teach the drive mechanism is configured to move the storage container vertically downwards relative to the base plate in addition to the limitations included in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11 The Prior Art does not teach the tilting mechanism is configured to move a first set of the plurality of supporting rods relative to a second set of the plurality of supporting rods such that the upper ends of the second set of supporting rods are at a higher vertical level than the upper ends of the first set of supporting rods in addition to the limitations included in Claims 10, 8 and 1
Regarding Claim 12 The Prior Art does not teach the transfer means comprises a pushing device configured to move in a direction parallel to the base plate so as to remove the at least one item of stock from the storage container by pushing the at least one item of stock off the base plate in addition to the limitations included in Claims 8 and 1.
Regarding Claim 14 The Prior Art does not teach the engagement feature comprises one of a high friction surface, an electroadhesive surface, an electromagnetic pad, and a permanent magnetic pad in addition to the limitations included in Claims 13 and 1.
Regarding Claim 16 The Prior Art does not teach the inside of the at least one side wall of the storage container comprises a vertical rib and the base plate comprises a corresponding recess, such that the vertical rib and the recess co-operate to guide the vertical movement of the base plate between the lowered position and the raised position in addition to the limitations included in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17 The Prior Art does not teach the inside of the at least one side wall of the storage container comprises a vertical groove and the base plate comprises a corresponding protrusion, such that the vertical groove and the protrusion co-operate to guide the vertical movement of the base plate between the lowered position and the raised position in addition to the limitations included in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19 The Prior Art does not teach a base plate (P) conveying means configured to convey a base plate (P) to or from the retrieval position in a second direction, wherein the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction in addition to the limitations included in Claims 18 and 1.
Regarding Claim 22 The Prior Art does not teach moving the storage container to the retrieval position using the container conveying means in addition to the limitations included in Claims 20 and 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ringler (US 20130212985): container (108a,108b, 102); base plate (118); drive mechanism/tilting transfer means (122) (Fig. 5)
Moore (US 3663078): container (12); base plate (20); drive mechanism/tilting transfer means (50)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER whose telephone number is (571)270-5944. The examiner can normally be reached 4 pm - 11:59 pm Monday - Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 571-270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights